Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction and Sentence – Appellant and intervenor convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Sentenced to ten months of simple imprisonment and directed to pay a total of Rs. 5 crores in three cases – Conviction and sentence affirmed by the Sessions Court and High Court [Paras 1-5, 7].

Bail and Suspension of Sentence – Violation of Undertaking – High Court cancelled bail and suspension of sentence due to non-compliance with financial obligations under an undertaking – Appellant and intervenor failed to pay the agreed amount of Rs. 4.63 crores as per the payment schedule – High Court's order upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 4, 9-12, 17, 19].

Inter Se Agreement – Payment Proportions – Appellant and intervenor's internal agreement on payment proportions (60:40) not binding on the complainant – Dispute over the outstanding amount to be settled between appellant and intervenor – Supreme Court refrains from adjudicating on inter se payment dispute [Paras 13-16].

High Court's Discretion – Enforcement of Undertaking – Supreme Court emphasizes High Court's discretion in enforcing compliance with the undertaking – Orders compliance with original terms of settlement and directs coercive measures if necessary [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court dismisses the appeal with costs of Rs. 5 lakhs payable to respondent No. 2 (complainant) – Appellant and intervenor directed to surrender within four weeks – High Court to proceed with pending revisions and applications ensuring full compliance with the undertaking [Paras 19-21].

Separation of Powers – High Court’s Power to Direct Notification of Rules Proposed by Chief Justice – Inadequate power under Article 229 to frame rules for post-retiral benefits of former judges – High Court, acting on judicial side, cannot compel the executive to exercise rule-making power as directed. [Para 24-30]

Criminal Contempt – Inappropriateness of Initiating Criminal Contempt for Legal Challenges – Recall application by State Government not contemptuous – Distinction between civil and criminal contempt – High Court's action in hastily invoking criminal contempt and custody of officials not justified. [Para 31-37]

Summoning Government Officials – Guidelines and Limitations – Inappropriate frequent summoning of government officials – Reliance on law officers instead of direct summoning – Framing of Standard Operating Procedure for appearance of government officials in court. [Para 38-45]

Decision – Impugned Orders Set Aside – Appeals allowed – High Court directed to reconsider the writ petition in light of observations made – Communication of judgment to all High Courts for framing rules based on SOP. [Para 46-49]

Criminal Appeal – Default Bail – Misapplication of Default Bail Provision by High Court – Supreme Court reverses the High Court's decision granting default bail to the respondent under Section 167(2) of CrPC – High Court's error in applying provisions of TADA instead of UAPA noted. [Paras 2, 4-5, 9, 14]

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) – Distinct Provisions for Extension of Investigation Period – Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA allows extension of investigation period under specific conditions – High Court failed to apply these specific provisions in granting default bail. [Paras 5-7, 10]

Investigation Extension – Valid Reasons Required – Importance of specific reasons like pending sanctions and FSL report for extending investigation period beyond 90 days under UAPA – High Court's oversight in assessing the validity of reasons for extension. [Paras 3.3, 8, 10-11]

Terrorism – Seriousness of Offences Involving Terrorism – Supreme Court emphasizes the gravity of offences involving terrorism with national and international implications – Necessity of careful judicial consideration in such cases. [Para 13]

Decision – Reversal of High Court's Order – High Court's order granting default bail set aside due to misapplication of legal provisions and oversight of critical facts – Respondent to be taken into custody. [Para 14]

IBC - Corporate Insolvency Resolution – Jurisdiction under Article 226 – High Court’s Interference Improper – High Court set aside a resolution plan citing principles of natural justice violations due to alleged insufficient notice – Held: IBC provides a complete code with ample remedies; High Court intervention was unwarranted and delayed, especially as respondent had availed IBC remedies before – Appeal allowed, High Court’s decision set aside [Paras 9-14].

Principles of Natural Justice – Notice Requirement in CIRP – Notice Contentious – Respondent claimed lack of notice before the 19th CoC meeting; records showed notice was issued – Held: No procedural infirmity established; mere assertions insufficient to invoke principles of natural justice to invalidate the CIRP [Paras 7-8].

Adherence to IBC Framework – CIRP Finality – Delay Impacting IBC Spirit – The CIRP had been ongoing since 2018, with resolution plan approval in 2020 – High Court's interference disrupted finality, breaching IBC’s discipline and objectives – Process restored to Adjudicating Authority for completion [Paras 13-16].

Decision:

Appeals allowed, High Court judgment in Writ Petition No. 483 of 2023 set aside – Adjudicating Authority to resume CIRP and complete proceedings expeditiously [Para 16].

Sale Deed Dispute – Land ownership dispute involving land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas – Discrepancy between original and interpolated sale deed – Original sale deed showing sale of entire land, while interpolated version showing sale of only 1/3rd of the land. [Paras 1, 11]

Interpretation of Registered Document – Application of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Emphasis on the operation of a registered document from the time it would have commenced if no registration was required – In this case, the registered sale deed operates from the date of its execution. [Paras 5, 6, 11]

Legal Position of Sale Completion – Reference to the Constitution Bench decision in Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer – Section 47 of the Registration Act does not determine the completion of sale but the operation date of the registered document. [Paras 7, 8]

Role of Consideration in Sale Deeds – Consideration fully paid on date of execution of sale deed – Sale deed operates from date of execution as per Section 47, Registration Act. [Paras 10, 11]

Invalidity of Unilateral Interpolation – Interpolation made by the seller after execution but before registration, without the buyer’s consent, deemed invalid – Sale deed to be considered in its original form at the time of execution. [Paras 11, 12]

High Court’s Decision Upheld – Supreme Court finds no error in High Court's decision restoring the Trial Court's decree – Dismissal of appeal with no order as to costs. [Paras 12, 13, 14]

Error in Date of Birth on Application – Minor Discrepancy – Appellant's candidature for Police Constable was rejected due to a mismatch in the date of birth in the application form (08.12.1997) and educational certificates (18.12.1997). The appellant contended the error was inadvertent, with no advantage gained, as he met the age criteria regardless. [Paras 2-4, 11, 18]

High Court Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, agreeing with the respondents that the error constituted misleading information, warranting rejection of the candidature per the terms of the advertisement. [Paras 6-7]

Supreme Court Analysis – Trivial Error – The Supreme Court found the error to be trivial and not impacting the selection process. The appellant's lack of awareness about the error and success in all stages of selection were noted. The principle 'De minimis non curat lex' (law does not concern itself with trifles) was applied. [Paras 14, 19, 20]

Precedents Considered – The Supreme Court considered various precedents where similar trivial errors in application forms were condoned. [Paras 16-17]

Supreme Court Decision – Candidature Restoration – The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing the State to consider the appellant as having passed the selection process and issue an appointment letter, if otherwise qualified. In case of no vacancy, an appointment letter is still to be issued, with the possibility of adjusting the vacancy in future recruitments. [Paras 25-26]

Arrest Procedure under PMLA – Appellant's arrest by ED challenged – Question of law: legality of ED's practice of not furnishing a copy of arrest grounds to the arrestee at the time of arrest – Appellant contends violation of Section 19 of PMLA and fundamental rights under the Constitution. [Para 3]

Factual Background – Appellant, founder of M/s Supertech Limited, faced multiple FIRs and a PMLA investigation – Arrested without a copy of the arrest grounds provided at the time, which led to the legal challenge. [Paras 4(i)-(vi)]

ED's Compliance Assertion – ED asserts compliance with Section 19 of PMLA – Claimed to have provided the arrest grounds document, which the appellant read and signed. [Para 5]

Appellant's Rejoinder – Appellant argues non-service of arrest grounds at the time of arrest is an illegality, stressing the importance of serving the grounds as per Supreme Court precedents. [Para 6]

Supreme Court's Analysis – Reviewed the constitutionality and interpretation of Section 19 of PMLA – Considered the mandate of informing the arrestee of arrest grounds. [Paras 10-22]

Decision and Rationale – Appeal dismissed – Court held that informing the appellant orally about the arrest grounds and providing a written communication within 24 hours is compliant with Section 19 of PMLA and the Constitution – The practice prior to the Pankaj Bansal judgment was deemed sufficient. [Paras 23-25]

Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Mumbai Slums – Legal challenge to the allotment process of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The appeal contests the High Court’s decision dismissing a writ petition concerning the Slum Rehabilitation Authority’s allotment methods in the redevelopment of slums in Lower Parel Division, Mumbai. [Paras 1-2, 3-5, 7, 8]

Development and Allotment Dispute – A dispute arose over the allotment of residential units in towers D, E, and F, with claims based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between a minority group of slum dwellers (Appellants) and a Developer. The High Court found the MoU, which deviated from standard SRA procedures, legally untenable. [Paras 9-14, 16-19, 22]

Legal Provisions for Allotment – The SRA’s guidelines under DCR 1991 and Circular No. 162, dated 23.10.2015, mandate the allotment of rehabilitation tenements through a lottery system, ensuring fairness and compliance with the law. [Paras 21, 25-26]

Court’s Decision – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court emphasized the statutory authority of the SRA and the non-enforceability of private agreements like the MoU in matters of public policy and welfare. It directed SRA to proceed with the allotment as per legal norms and reprimanded the Developer for bypassing statutory procedures. [Paras 22-26]

Arbitration Clause in Property Agreements – Applicability to Subsequent Development Agreements and Conveyance Deed – Tripartite Agreements dated 31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008 containing arbitration clauses form the basis of subsequent Development Agreements and a Conveyance Deed – Disputes arising out of these agreements referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. [Paras 2, 5-6]

Judicial Intervention in Arbitration – Limited Role Post 2015 Amendment to Arbitration Act – Courts to minimize interference in arbitration matters, primarily ensuring existence of a valid arbitration agreement. [Paras 7, 17]

Suit for Cancellation of Deed – Action in Personam, not in Rem – Following precedent in Deccan Paper Mills v. Regency Mahavir Properties, dispute related to cancellation of a deed recognized as an action in personam, suitable for arbitration. [Para 19]

Fraud Allegations in Arbitration – Need for Substantiation – Mere allegations of fraud without serious implications in the public domain do not preclude arbitration. [Para 20]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No interference warranted by the Supreme Court in the decisions of the Trial Court and High Court to refer the dispute to arbitration. [Para 21]